so then why does he bother with a tailor? He could just send one of his handlers to Target.

You can make something look frumpy but still make it out of high quality materials and all the other niceties of bespoke. I've thought about doing something similar. Buy a suit around my size from a department store and not have it altered anything (other than a hemming) and use it for interviewing. As an Engineer, at least while interviewing, I don't want to come across as well dressed, but rather as a killer Engineer.

I take issue with saying Clinton and Bush dress badly as well. I always thought Clinton's clothes were cut and colour coordinated well for his age and position. According to Tom Mahon, he had (and probably still has) his suits tailor made specifically with a crooked cut. W doesn't dress badly per se, but he's not incredibly inspiring either. In more than just clothes, but that's already obvious to most people who live in the States. I don't think Gates is a very good dresser when it comes to suiting up based on what I've seen. It either seems to fit him poorly (odd if he has a tailor) or his shirt and tie choice are off.

I always thought Clinton's clothes were cut and colour coordinated well for his age and position. According to Tom Mahon, he had (and probably still has) his suits tailor made specifically with a crooked cut.

I think Clinton's jackets are cut straight instead of crooked: he exposes more shirt.

It's the Protestant ethic in this country that makes it particularly objectionable to live hedonistically in any context lest one appear to be a Mafia don.

And that "Protestant ethic," shared by plenty of non-Protestant Americans, is, in part, what made this country the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world.

After all, Bill Gates didn't arise in Europe, did he? It is also that same ethic (and fashion sense, perhaps ) transmitted to Asia that is making Asia the economic dynamo it is today. Meanwhile, the uppercrust of Europe might be enjoying the fine life, but its middle- and lower-classes continue to fall in economic standing compared to the rest of the developed and developing world.

As for this notion that American billionaires don't "enjoy" their money, rest assured they do. At least some of them simply don't consider clothes, cars and women to be a significant part of that enjoyment. Some are just happy with their wives and children having comfortable lives (Gates sometimes takes his kids to a public swimming pool), and spend their fortune 1) building even bigger fortunes and thereby affecting the destinies of nations and 2) contributing to charity and medical research (as Gates also does).

Manifest destiny is not for everyone. Beyond the fact that the rise of Asia is not determined by a Protestant ethic as in the context of America; rather, China's basis is largely based on certain corrupt influences. Japan has always had a culture which values dedication. The fact that they enjoy themselves by building bigger fortunes to affect the destinies of nations is by itself a rather problematic philosophical statement. Charity is always dubious.

Beyond the fact that the rise of Asia is not determined by a Protestant ethic as in the context of America; rather, China's basis is largely based on certain corrupt influences. Japan has always had a culture which values dedication.

While I absolutely agree that much of the newly rich in China gained their wealth by leveraging political connections (i.e. corruption), the transmission of the so-called Protestant ethic through missionaries and other American cultural influences did much to increase the drive for Western education, technology and entrepreneuralism in Asia, not just China.

And, yes, while Japan has had a culture of dedication, that dedication in the pre-modern times was to be directed at combat, arts, ascestism and so on. Dedication for mercantile achievement is historically a relatively recent phenomenon even in Japan, and was a result of drive for Westernization. Pre-modern Asian societies guided by Confucian centralism often disdained the merchant class and its pursuits.

Quote:

The fact that they enjoy themselves by building bigger fortunes to affect the destinies of nations is by itself a rather problematic philosophical statement. Charity is always dubious.

Well, I wasn't suggesting that affecting destinies of nations is good or bad, but merely that some consider it more worthwhile than enjoying clothes, cars and women.

While I acknowledge that charity organizations can be, as you put, "dubious," some might, again, consider providing funds for medical research more worthwhile than enjoying clothes, cars and women.

And that "Protestant ethic," shared by plenty of non-Protestant Americans, is, in part, what made this country the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world.

After all, Bill Gates didn't arise in Europe, did he? It is also that same ethic (and fashion sense, perhaps ) transmitted to Asia that is making Asia the economic dynamo it is today. Meanwhile, the uppercrust of Europe might be enjoying the fine life, but its middle- and lower-classes continue to fall in economic standing compared to the rest of the developed and developing world.

As for this notion that American billionaires don't "enjoy" their money, rest assured they do. At least some of them simply don't consider clothes, cars and women to be a significant part of that enjoyment. Some are just happy with their wives and children having comfortable lives (Gates sometimes takes his kids to a public swimming pool), and spend their fortune 1) building even bigger fortunes and thereby affecting the destinies of nations and 2) contributing to charity and medical research (as Gates also does).

And, mind you, I am not exactly a big fan of Gates.

Well, I can't speak for LK but I was simply begrudging the collective lack of style and enjoyment of many of out rich, not the work ethic that got them there. Obiviously, I have not crossed paths with every wealthy person in America so my statement is a generalization and biased as to my own experiences. There is nothing wrong with enjoying your wife and family nor giving to charity, especially on the scale of the Gates'. Those things and the "good life" are not mutually excusive though. What exactly is Mr. Gates accomplishing by taking the family to the public pool? Showing that he is one with the common man? Possibly endangering his very well known family by exposing them to some loony who might have had Windows crash on him during an important project or sees the kids as a kidnapping payday? Of course, I would assume that he does not take a security detail with him to the public pool as the irony would be overwhelming.

The Asians, I think, prove my point more than they do yours. Which culture is fanatical about fine watches, cars, clothing and wine? They work hard and they play hard. People like Bennetton, Onassis and the late Agnelli were/are, I would assume, hard workers and charitable yet they also led/lead enviable lives from the pure enjoyment perspective. To each his own but there is nothing wrong with "flaunting it" in a stylish manner, something that our culture has almost outlawed.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying your wife and family nor giving to charity, especially on the scale of the Gates'.

Not only is there "nothing wrong" with such things, they should be encouraged, no?

Quote:

Those things and the "good life" are not mutually excusive though.

True enough. I suppose one can do both. I guess it comes down to the fact that when some folks do worthwhile things with their money, their "lack of style" doesn't really matter to them -- apparently they matter only to those with far less money and power who obssess with length of lapels.

Quote:

What exactly is Mr. Gates accomplishing by taking the family to the public pool? Showing that he is one with the common man? Possibly endangering his very well known family by exposing them to some loony

Has it occurred to you that, just maybe, Gates took his kids to a public pool, not to "show... he is one with the common man," but to give his children some semblance of the "normal" life? Play with other normal kids around, and not be cloistered like royalty? (I agree, however, that Gates needs to balance this with the security for his kids, to be sure.)

I attended a university with the children of enormously wealthy people, and knew some personally. As a general observation (of course, there were individuals who did not fit the stereotype), most of the European scions dressed the part, drove luxury cars (one German kid bought a house, a Ferrari, a Porsche and an SUV the first year at the university) and sneered at their American peers (wonder why they were attending school in the U.S.?).

On the other hand, I knew quite a few American heirs and heiresses who wore Land's End or Gap clothes, drove Subaru's, drank bad beer and socialized with "normal" kids, not out of some demonstration of fealty to the common man, but because they enjoyed being something other than walking demonstrations of the so-called "good life."

They hung out with students who were interesting, athletic or highly intelligent, but not nearly as rich as they were while most "euros" hung out with each other or with those desperate American kids who went to obscene lengths to fit in with the latter, going so far as to imitate foreign accents.

Quote:

Yes, the Asian wealthy spend a lot on themselves in term of what would commonly be thought of as fine goods.

I've seen very few super rich Europeans who dress "poorly," but I certainly have seen quite a few Asian super rich who dress very modestly. That goes for Asian-Americans too.

I had a friend working in private banking services, who had a new ethnic Chinese client come in for the first time. The guy was dressed like a common grocer. Turned out he owned three high rise buildings in Manhattan and had princely sums to invest. This is not something I see commonly in Europe.

I was simply begrudging the collective lack of style and enjoyment of many of out rich

Lack of style, perhaps. But lack of enjoyment? This assumes that everyone's priority, were he to possess a fortune, is to wear nice clothes, drive a nice car and bed lots of attractive women.

Those things are all great, no doubt. But, like I wrote before, there are other things more "enjoyable" to those who think differently, for whom sartorial enjoyment is near the bottom of the enjoyment scale of things.

I have a terrible sense of style, and this forum has been very helpful in making me look a bit more stylish than before, and I appreciate that. But at times I find the prevailing attitudes on this forum odd and even condescending.

E.g.: I recently asked those on the forum about some suits, I gather, that were "fused." One commenter wrote that I should go ahead and wear them "until [i] can afford something better." The assumption, obviously, was that I was wearing the most expensive clothes I could afford (perhaps because he does).

While I absolutely agree that much of the newly rich in China gained their wealth by leveraging political connections (i.e. corruption), the transmission of the so-called Protestant ethic through missionaries and other American cultural influences did much to increase the drive for Western education, technology and entrepreneuralism in Asia, not just China.

And, yes, while Japan has had a culture of dedication, that dedication in the pre-modern times was to be directed at combat, arts, ascestism and so on. Dedication for mercantile achievement is historically a relatively recent phenomenon even in Japan, and was a result of drive for Westernization. Pre-modern Asian societies guided by Confucian centralism often disdained the merchant class and its pursuits.Well, I wasn't suggesting that affecting destinies of nations is good or bad, but merely that some consider it more worthwhile than enjoying clothes, cars and women.

While I acknowledge that charity organizations can be, as you put, "dubious," some might, again, consider providing funds for medical research more worthwhile than enjoying clothes, cars and women.

Desire for mercantile achievement in Japan predates the drive for Westernization. The Edo period was marked by wealthy merchants pushing the envelope of ostentation, with several rounds of sumputuary edicts being passed by the Tokugawas in response.

One interesting way to trace the development of materialism in Japan is to look at weaponry. From the Momoyama period on, swords (well, specifically the koshirae or furniture) became much more "blingy." Red lacquered saya (sheaths), gold fittings, etc. And swords in the Osaka region are thought to be much more showy than ones from the Edo region, owing to the fact that merchants were more influential in Osaka, while bureaucrats dominated in Edo.